And who signs 90% of these apparatchick’s paychecks? It’s the billionaires.
The billionaires are the ones LARPing as the puppeteers. And if we don’t challenge them, their shitty LARPs are uncontested and become real.
The billionaires are the primary beneficiaries of the status quo.
I feel like you’re anthropomorphizing. The vast majority of the billionaires aren’t human. We deregulated banks with a partial repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act. And, we continued to strengthen corporate personhood.
Today, the banks are the billionaires that own the stock in the corporations that exercise their right to free speech in campaign donations to puppeteer politicians into making the status quo worse for the vast majority of humans.
You’re not wrong about the system being what it is.
But the system lacks agency. The system cannot do things differently one fine Tuesday morning. Only human beings have this kind of latitude.
Another distinction is that the system is a tool while humans are the beneficiaries or the fodder for the system, as the case may be. Billionaires are the foremost material beneficiaries of the system.
Therefore, the weak link is the human, and not the system. But. What you say is, in my opinion, very important because it helps us recognize that the human beings are organised in networks and are also creatures of habit, which means there is a lot of inertia that must be overcome. Even the best action won’t have instant results.
Right now there is zero risk, zero downside for the billionaires. They have the biggest per-individual influence on the system which essentially prints money for them. It makes sense that protecting and expanding the system would be the sole concern of the 99% of the billionaires. The other 1% might have some earnest sympathy for the underclass. Might… So simply adding an element of risk will change this equation.
However if you think there is a clever way to gum up the system in a purely procedural/bureaucratic way, I am all ears. I am currently not smart/cognizant enough to think of a way.
Crystal clear piece of writing. Humans are obviously collectively responsible for the systems they create and perpetuate.
I am currently not smart/cognizant enough to think of a way.
An individual, regardless of wealth, power, and ability, is powerless relative the systemic mandate. Large groups produce mediocrity. Their outcomes fail to meet the prerequisite urgency of the human mandate.
However if you think there is a clever way to gum up the system in a purely procedural/bureaucratic way, I am all ears.
The first rule consists of a relatively small number of people, who know little to no information concerning organization assets (such as member identities). This limits the harm that can be done to the organization as a whole by any individual member. The structure can range from a strict hierarchy to an extremely distributed organization, depending on the group’s ideology, its operational area, the communications technologies available, and the nature of the mission.
Above, I wrote one cohesive response, not three snippets. It’s powerful because great people wrote it: from King to Wiki. I’m just a guy who knows you’re not looking for ideas.
I am always learning, but I have accepted that I own my process of learning. This means I enjoy discussions and it is possible for me to learn something new in a discussion or to remind myself of something I don’t want to forget, and I sometimes enjoy good company, but the grand strategy of my cognition and the final say on meanings and values are not collaborative for me, but the sole responsibility of myself to myself.
I enjoy solitude every bit as much as I enjoy good company.
I respect your agency in your learning process and assume personal wisdom.
I learned very little useful studying the Bible and philosophy by myself. Some subjects are just that way, such as Capital. And, no one comes just wanting to learn the material. All want an opportunity for praxis.
We could add real downsides to being in the upper class. So that being in the upper class is no longer a strict upgrade from the middle class, but a trade-off.
For example we can guarantee most privacy protections for the lower classes (the very opposite of the current surveillance capitalism). At the same time the upper class would have to submit their persons and all their transactions and doings to the most stringent transparency requirements. Don’t like being constantly under a microscope and in public view? Don’t be in the upper class.
While the middle class would be a position in the middle with just marginally less privacy than the lower class, but much more privacy than the upper class.
If humans constantly tempted by wealth and power, who then fall victim to it, have their right to privacy infringed, then they’ll go right on feeding their addictions, no matter the cost of maintenance of privacy?
I don’t view privacy as an unconditional right. Also perfect privacy is impossible.
If you are a small individual whose decisions will not make big waves in society, you can be completely anonymous as far as I am concerned.
If you command great resources and can singlehandedly significantly affect my world with a stroke of a pen, I need to watch you, because you are dangerous to my world.
Right now our society is exactly upside down in this aspect.
Agreed. Also to add, it’s much better than having almost no power and almost no privacy like right now.
Besides, maybe you can think of another way to restrain the accumulationists at the top of society.
Right now being a billionaire is zero risk, zero downside. It’s not a trade-off but a strict upgrade from the middle class. No wonder the billionaires are insane and detached from reality.
So either risk (like randomly executing some of them every year), or a downside, or both have to be added to the equation to keep the top of the society in check.
I feel like you’re anthropomorphizing. The vast majority of the billionaires aren’t human. We deregulated banks with a partial repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act. And, we continued to strengthen corporate personhood.
Today, the banks are the billionaires that own the stock in the corporations that exercise their right to free speech in campaign donations to puppeteer politicians into making the status quo worse for the vast majority of humans.
Valuable thought! Thank you!
You’re not wrong about the system being what it is.
But the system lacks agency. The system cannot do things differently one fine Tuesday morning. Only human beings have this kind of latitude.
Another distinction is that the system is a tool while humans are the beneficiaries or the fodder for the system, as the case may be. Billionaires are the foremost material beneficiaries of the system.
Therefore, the weak link is the human, and not the system. But. What you say is, in my opinion, very important because it helps us recognize that the human beings are organised in networks and are also creatures of habit, which means there is a lot of inertia that must be overcome. Even the best action won’t have instant results.
Right now there is zero risk, zero downside for the billionaires. They have the biggest per-individual influence on the system which essentially prints money for them. It makes sense that protecting and expanding the system would be the sole concern of the 99% of the billionaires. The other 1% might have some earnest sympathy for the underclass. Might… So simply adding an element of risk will change this equation.
However if you think there is a clever way to gum up the system in a purely procedural/bureaucratic way, I am all ears. I am currently not smart/cognizant enough to think of a way.
Crystal clear piece of writing. Humans are obviously collectively responsible for the systems they create and perpetuate.
An individual, regardless of wealth, power, and ability, is powerless relative the systemic mandate. Large groups produce mediocrity. Their outcomes fail to meet the prerequisite urgency of the human mandate.
The first rule consists of a relatively small number of people, who know little to no information concerning organization assets (such as member identities). This limits the harm that can be done to the organization as a whole by any individual member. The structure can range from a strict hierarchy to an extremely distributed organization, depending on the group’s ideology, its operational area, the communications technologies available, and the nature of the mission.
Gold.
The human Mandate!
First time I hear such powerful words. I have to think about this and the last part too.
Above, I wrote one cohesive response, not three snippets. It’s powerful because great people wrote it: from King to Wiki. I’m just a guy who knows you’re not looking for ideas.
I am always learning, but I have accepted that I own my process of learning. This means I enjoy discussions and it is possible for me to learn something new in a discussion or to remind myself of something I don’t want to forget, and I sometimes enjoy good company, but the grand strategy of my cognition and the final say on meanings and values are not collaborative for me, but the sole responsibility of myself to myself.
I enjoy solitude every bit as much as I enjoy good company.
I respect your agency in your learning process and assume personal wisdom.
I learned very little useful studying the Bible and philosophy by myself. Some subjects are just that way, such as Capital. And, no one comes just wanting to learn the material. All want an opportunity for praxis.
Another thought, for the longer term.
We could add real downsides to being in the upper class. So that being in the upper class is no longer a strict upgrade from the middle class, but a trade-off.
For example we can guarantee most privacy protections for the lower classes (the very opposite of the current surveillance capitalism). At the same time the upper class would have to submit their persons and all their transactions and doings to the most stringent transparency requirements. Don’t like being constantly under a microscope and in public view? Don’t be in the upper class.
While the middle class would be a position in the middle with just marginally less privacy than the lower class, but much more privacy than the upper class.
Privacy is prerequisite to a life of dignity. It’s not a bargaining chip for another prerequisite.
Wealth is only a prerequisite up to a point, beyond which wealth transitions into a luxury as opposed to something life-giving or dignifying.
I can accept accumulations up to somewhere between $50 and $150 million.
People with extreme accumulations have to be watched and regulated if we want a society that optimizes for broad dignity.
If you want to optimize for peak dignity, monarchies with unlimited accumulations are the best for that.
If humans constantly tempted by wealth and power, who then fall victim to it, have their right to privacy infringed, then they’ll go right on feeding their addictions, no matter the cost of maintenance of privacy?
I don’t view privacy as an unconditional right. Also perfect privacy is impossible.
If you are a small individual whose decisions will not make big waves in society, you can be completely anonymous as far as I am concerned.
If you command great resources and can singlehandedly significantly affect my world with a stroke of a pen, I need to watch you, because you are dangerous to my world.
Right now our society is exactly upside down in this aspect.
If I were in a position of power I’d hopefully willingly give up some privacy. But, no law can sit in judgement, let alone something so simple.
Agreed. Also to add, it’s much better than having almost no power and almost no privacy like right now.
Besides, maybe you can think of another way to restrain the accumulationists at the top of society.
Right now being a billionaire is zero risk, zero downside. It’s not a trade-off but a strict upgrade from the middle class. No wonder the billionaires are insane and detached from reality.
So either risk (like randomly executing some of them every year), or a downside, or both have to be added to the equation to keep the top of the society in check.
Taxes, government ownership, or communal ownership. For example, tax all wealth above $100m at 100%.